| Literature DB >> 23425437 |
Kurt Sartorius1, Benn K D Sartorius.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sub Saharan Africa is confronted with a wide range of interlinked health and economic problems that include high levels of mortality and poor service delivery. The objective of the paper is to develop a spatial model for Sub-Saharan Africa that can quantify the mortality impact of (poor) service delivery at sub-district level in order to integrate related health and local level policy interventions. In this regard, an expanded composite service delivery index was developed, and the data were analysed using a Bayesian Poisson spatial model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23425437 PMCID: PMC3607859 DOI: 10.1186/1476-072X-12-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Figure 1Map of South Africa, with provinces and neighboring countries.
Mortality and service non-delivery levels and rank at the provincial level, South Africa, 2007
| Free State | 19.58 (19.42,19.75) | 1 | 64.2 (55.35,73.06) | 6 |
| Kwazulu Natal | 19.22 (19.13,19.3) | 1 | 113.01 (97.94,128.08) | 2 |
| Eastern Cape | 19.19 (19.08,19.29) | 1 | 103.18 (78.57,127.79) | 3 |
| Mpumalanga | 19.14 (19,19.28) | 1 | 98.39 (84.05,112.73) | 4 |
| North West | 15.31 (15.18,15.45) | 5 | 89.27 (76.31,102.23) | 5 |
| Northern Cape | 15.15 (14.91,15.38) | 5 | 36.06 (27.61,44.52) | 8 |
| Limpopo | 11.53 (11.44,11.62) | 7 | 122.69 (104.67,140.7) | 1 |
| Gauteng | 10.84 (10.78,10.9) | 8 | 48.46 (38.28,58.63) | 7 |
| Western Cape | 8.02 (7.94,8.1) | 9 | 27.86 (22.35,33.36) | 9 |
Figure 2(a) Chloropleth map plotting the standardised mortality ratio (SMR) and (b) standardised poor service ratio (observed/expected) using a Bayesian BYM convolution Poisson model (baseline model containing only a constant and the conditional autoregressive parameters – see Appendix 1) by local municipality, South Africa, 2007. Note: areas which significantly exceeded the expected null value (ratio > 1), based on exceedance probabilities, are highlighted with an asterisk; provincial boundaries in bold.
Bayesian multivariable local municipality mortality risk factor analysis, South Africa, 2007
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Composite service delivery index score iv | 2.90 (1.99,4.20) | <0.001 | 1.84 (1.43,2.34) | <0.001 |
| High local municipality income inequality | 1.23 (1.04,1.46) | 0.015 | 1.14 (1.02,1.29) | 0.024 |
| Low-medium district population density | 1 | | | |
| High density vi – non-metropolitan | 1.13 (1.00,1.28) | 0.050 | 0.97 (0.87,1.09) | 0.648 |
| High density - metropolitan municipality | 0.66 (0.52,0.83) | <0.001 | 0.73 (0.65,0.82) | <0.001 |
| District antenatal HIV sero-prevalence | 1.02 (1.01,1.03) | <0.001 | 1.02 (1.02,1.03) | <0.001 |
i: robust standard errors to adjust for local municipality “cluster”.
ii: incorporated an unstructured local municipality random effect and a structured normal CAR spatial random effect.
iii: Bayesian credibility interval.
iv: increasing score indicates increasingly poor service delivery (square transformation used due to violation of linear assumption in Poisson framework).
v: lower tertiale.
vi: upper quartile and adjusting for metropolitan.
Figure 3Mortality reduction proportion at local municipality level (quaternary unit): observed (black) and projected reduction (grey) based on the provision of service delivery (removal of attributable factor).
Figure 4Service delivery and mortality in South Africa [[45]].
Correlation coefficient matrix of the various individual service delivery components at the local municipality level, South Africa, 2007
| Proportion with no water service provider | 1.0000 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Proportion with no toilet facilities | 0.56* | 1.0000 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Proportion with no refusal disposal | 0.50* | 0.65* | 1.0000 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Proportion with no electricity | 0.63* | 0.61* | 0.62* | 1.0000 | --- | --- | --- |
| Poor ratio of population size to health facilities | 0.18* | 0.10 | 0.16* | 0.13* | 1.0000 | --- | --- |
| Proportion with no schooling | 0.46* | 0.48* | 0.45* | 0.65* | 0.09 | 1.0000 | --- |
| Proportion living in informal housing | −0.37* | −0.25* | −0.26* | −0.34* | 0.06 | −0.13* | 1.0000 |
*: significant at the 5% level.